I'm certainly not; as I said previously you and others are capable to constrain such grand narratives, but even so, the article that you posted itself says:

"However, astrobiologist Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University thinks the study team should have performed such follow-up analyses, and consulted diatom experts, before publishing its provocative claim."

The scientific community is very competitive.

That article you attached shows skepticism and scrutiny from the scientific community and for good reason. Astrobiology is an intriguing discipline but within reason and a balloon collecting microbes from the stratosphere is hardly evidence of extraterrestrial life. As it said: "If they were able to show that it was composed of all D amino acids (proteins in Earth life are made of L amino acids), that would be pretty convincing to me... If it does indeed share Earth biochemistry, proving that it is of alien origin is probably impossible." There is no scientific credibility in the claim.

I am really awesome with babies and have made them laugh quite deeply that I was forced to actually stop for fear that they might stop breathing (baby laughter is best sound in existence), but I believe it to be a signal of learning as they interact with and respond to others that strengthens their social and cognitive development. My experience with babies is usually a response to sounds and the temporary 'shock' or pop from sounds that can put them into hysterics. It is more the action that they respond to and any relief is usually the outcome but not the cause or what initiates humour.

I work in a national literacy program for children and one aspect of my role is to train parents and early childhood educators to read to babies because there is a misconception that they do not actually understand being so small. Reading to children actually benefits brain development and the first several years requires positive stimulation as the synapses network begin to form prior to pruning as the child grows. It is the visual, auditory and somatosensory that stimulate activity in the brain and while they may not understand what is actually be said, reading to babies is key to early cognitive development and I believe humour is another and why the PACE theory (appropriate attachment necessary for development) requires playfulness. Thus play theory I think is likely.

Humour is a type of intelligence, even as adults it is a way of communicating. Babies are laughing at something they know is silly, that it is not real but present. The "peek a boo" has been studied to show an anticipation that they will return and sharing a type of knowledge that it is just a trick.

Any condemnation or prevention of laughter and humour to me immoral.

Shit, I'm getting clucky.

I did not realise that tardigrades arrived via interstellar spores and so did octopus and that we are actually aliens. My bad.

The worry I am experiencing here is the scope is broad and beyond verifiable observations that impulse grand narratives justified by highly technical modes of thought that obscurely engages within the sphere of natural science. The result would be perennial criticisms that lack any real relevance. You can discuss the atomic structure of our biology in an attempt to constrain this speculation, for instance, but unless you are attempting to form a hypothesis, it becomes rooted in very clever but unreliable claims that overall remain non-productive. We confuse speculation with experimental data.

Philosophy of science is "a field that deals with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge" and thus about the methods and implications. I understand your point of view because you and others are capable of this capacity to constrain, but even so, I would still like to understand how this question bears any relevance to the philosophy of science.

Such speculative claims that cannot be verified by the scientific method raises dubious results that may perhaps be creative but ultimately a very poor conception of natural reality. Can the OP or others explain to me how this is either philosophy or philosophy of science?

Trolls, eh?

What do you think? I missed the bus, you see. Probably not as dark and frightfully disturbing as your work.

Though, I agree with the sentiment that a two parent household, with loving parents is the optimal arrangement for raising children, there should be no children to raise in the first place. No one needs to be given the problems of life in order to carry out X reason (i.e. achievement, relationships, learning, etc. etc.). — schopenhauer1

There is no definitive proof considering the question of axiology as there is a balance between the benefits and the harms of procreation and no one can assess the benefits because the experience is personal. It may be assumed that it is for that reason 'harms' is the logical result, but given our capacity for autonomy and our ability to transcend the injunctions of others, we should be permitted by making that choice ourselves. You underestimate our cognitive capacity, our ability to become conscious of and reject blind conformity.

Most of my difficulties were a result of bad parenting; the problem is not that they had me (I am not the problem); the problem is them being bad parents. The risk could have been that I turned into a bad parent, and produced another, and another until you have a tumour of bad people growing in an otherwise healthy body. Cut out the bad parenting and you will have a good enough society and so it is bad parents that should not be allowed to have children, not that children should completely cease to exist.

It should be anti-bad-parentalism. Also, it is not your place to tell people what they may or may not be able to tolerate, our thresholds are different. I may have been through some pretty shitty circumstances, but I am inherently a happy person and embrace my vulnerabilities openly. I love people and I love being loving. Most people would not tolerate what I can rather easily.

The circular reasoning that without any individuals being born, there are no individuals experiencing growth breaks down in the broken logic of its own circularity. — schopenhauer1

How?

Life is an instrumental affair of survival, comfort and boredom regulation via the milieu of a linguistic-cultural setting, repeated unto death. We survive through economic/institutional means, we seek comfort via our institutional/encultured habits, we seek entertainment due to our restless, linguistically-based, culturally constructed, minds. — schopenhauer1

This is true, but again, you are not equating the fundamental aspect to our very existence; love. Again, love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence because we are able to identify external objects that enables feeling and makes experience intelligible. It is the human in humanity. Sure, we have all of what you say above, I can eat, drink, survive etc., but like the example of those children in the orphanage or even this, without love, our ability to correctly articulate and interpret the world around us makes us nothing but a species. Like aesthetics and art, our emotions and compassion define us and enable us to transcend those physiological states so that we experience.

There is no ending it except through death. As stated earlier- there is the non-existence before birth, there is death. Why the in between? — schopenhauer1

There is a 'we' here that you seem to miss. When one experiences love, compassion, empathy they transcend the ego, the 'I' and begin to feel and understand through moral consciousness the external world and the importance of others, of nature and animals. If I love my child and likewise my child loves me, if I die, does that love cease? The continuity is through one another and so it is during our time together that we improve, both in ourselves and through one another. The static fatalism that you offer is not resolving the problems you are articulating as justifications for your argument.

are you living on planet Earth, or Mars? — Agustino

Earth.

You said:

That is, to the extent that antinatalism makes people miserable, which it undoubtedly does, — Thorongil

And I responded with:

although I believe neither anti-natalism nor celibacy makes people miserable — TimeLine

So, how you got:

Are you saying that celibacy makes people miserable? — Thorongil

Is rather awkward. Thus, your cheerful anti-natalist concept is unnecessary; if goodness and evil are not quantifiable because it is subjective, misery and happiness is the same.

Antinatalism is different, for it is not a way of life but a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to perhaps the most common, basic, and accepted acts of human existence, which in turn changes the complexion of one's everyday experience of life considerably, and for the worse. — Thorongil

I am not one who is uncomfortable discussing awkward topics like celibacy that rarely get discussed amongst us non-religious, left-wing socialist folk, but surely that is irrelevant. I could say that celibacy is dogmatic and assigns a negative value to perhaps the most common, basic, and accepted acts of human existence - sex - (it is sexual intercourse that enables people to reproduce) but we both know that would be problematic. A person can be dedicated to either a dogmatic/religious position, a philosophical, political, or a social position that could change their everyday experience considerably.

I have no firm statistics, but the suicide rate among antinatalists is doubtless very high. — Thorongil

Please don't use words like 'doubtless' when you are uncertain. You are surely better than that.

It is therefore naive to believe it can be genuinely maintained in a theoretical sense without it affecting one's psychological, emotional, and possibly physical state, and again, for the worse. In sum, celibacy isn't defined as a moral judgment, whereas antinatalism is, and because it is, and because of the nature of that which it judges, it leads to almost perpetual anguish and misery. — Thorongil

I am not saying that it can be maintained, on the contrary there are compelling arguments against the misanthropic position in particular, but any suggestion that life is not worth living is balanced in an axis that contains compelling arguments both of the benefits of living and procreation that establishes an assymetry and resolves this ethical conflict. The argument that the nature of humanity is inherently evil is not acceptable and if there is conformity, lies, bad things etc., the anti-natalist should be focusing on changing that and not eliminating human existence entirely. It does not, however, mean that arguments against giving birth are incorrect, it just needs to be done without such sharp fatalism where children should cease to exist completely.

My argument is simply this:
People should not be having children for the wrong reasons. It does not mean that people should not be having children. So, what are the wrong reasons? And if they are wrong and if we can articulate why it is wrong, than our attempt should be to make it right. So, how can we make it right? If everyone stopped giving birth, that would not resolve the issue. Giving birth for the right reasons, which would be only when two loving people actively choose and decisively commit themselves to raising the child.

celibacy isn't defined as a moral judgment, whereas antinatalism is — Thorongil

Are you sure about that?

For the sake of argument, wouldn't it dictate your will to act above and over compassion and love for the duration of copulation? Otherwise, what does your qualification here mean? — Thorongil

Do you think that sexual intercourse' only objective is procreation and if so, would your complete abstinence therefore be anti-natalist? There is good, healthy, morally acceptable sex between two loving people. Our instinctual drives can vehicle us to do contrary to this, to cheat, to do some sexually debauch and even criminal acts, but loving relationships are aligned with our will to act with compassion and love. We can behave rationally and stop ourselves from cheating - from a Kantian perspective - but that requires a great deal of effort, but if we obtain this Schops 'kernel' then the effort ceases and our Will is motivated to act with love that all the wrongs like cheating or sexual crimes etc, become impossible naturally. We become happy without effort.

Dude, I'm a 3 star Michelin cook. Farmers market then back to my place.

I take care of myself, old horse.

Well, we'll meet in France, have lunch and go visit the Mona Lisa together. I take it that I am your favourite TPF poster?

You should think what to be self-refuting? Being in favor of celibacy? Why would it be? — Thorongil

It really depends on your justification for celibacy, but I assume it attracts in similar vein to your original rejection of anti-natalism the same self-refuting irony (although I believe neither anti-natalism nor celibacy makes people miserable since 'misery' is entirely subjective). My arguments for celibacy are not absolute (very similar to that of anti-natalism where an authenticity in this intimacy between two people must first be established through love before choosing to have children) because what should fundamentally drive us is our will to compassion and love. It is my practical way of confirming how much I believe in this, but there is nothing inherently wrong with sexual intercourse; it is only wrong when it dictates your Will to act above and over compassion and love.

Alas, it seems to me that the number of loving parents, call them Schopenhauerian parents, is rather small. Indeed, Schopenhauer's own parents lacked the compassion he emphasized and which you describe. — Thorongil

I like that name, actually. :D But, given that it is small, it returns back to my original argument vis-a-vis purpose, that when there is wrong, we should have the will to make it right. There is always a way in which we can improve and so anti-natalism is incorrect because we are drawing focus on the wrong problem as the real problem is rather this lack of compassion and empathy. That is what we should be changing and not completely stopping the birth of children. It is like putting a bandaid on your hand when the cut is on your leg and under certain circumstances anti-natalism is justified, but not entirely.

In any case, the antinatalist, beholden to negative utilitarianism, cannot abide so much as an ounce of suffering if he is to remain consistent. There is a reason schop1 speaks of "structural suffering." Assuming a moral imperative to reduce all suffering, then procreation is immoral, as even the most compassionate parents in the world will not produce a life that does not suffer and thereby add to its total. — Thorongil

They have some pretty strong arguments when it comes to 'risk' but I do agree with this.

That is, to the extent that antinatalism makes people miserable, which it undoubtedly does, then based on the very negative utilitarian principles on which it is based, one is obliged to reject it. — Thorongil

Forgive me, but are you not pro-celibacy? I should think that to be self-refuting, which just makes the logic of your entire argument problematic.

Well, I didn't mention love at all, so I am not sure where this fits into my pessimism or antinatalism. I guess, if I was to pull out something, it is your use of "purpose" in connection with compassion. If my argument is that no one needs to be born to carry out any X reason. Then no, no one needs to be born to be given the problem of trying to overcome selfishness and show compassion for fellow man in the first place. In other words, though compassion should be something sought once born, it is not a reason to be born. — schopenhauer1

You are looking at the subject in a counterfactual way because it is not grounded in the child, but the parents giving birth to the child. Indeed, there is an absence of compassion/empathy within your argument and the very reasoning behind my involvement of "love" - Schopenhauer' (no pun intended) On the Basis of Morality believed that the application of rational, regulatory behaviour in the absence of compassion lacks moral fibre or that real "kernel" within and so such behaviour is not authentically moral but rather driven by an injurious mechanics that enables immoral conduct. "Whoever is filled with it [compassion] will assuredly injure no one, do harm to no one, encroach on no man's rights; he will rather have regard for every one, forgive every one, help every one as far as he can, and all his actions will bear the stamp of justice and loving-kindness." That aspect to his argument is favourable to me because an absence of it reminiscent of a calculating, cold 'mirroring' that lacks consciousness or a 'will' that ultimately drives a person to behave. The Kantian rationale should only occur after this and our motivation or Will must contain this kernel, it must be driven by this compassion, this love, morality, ethics, whatever label you want to call it (I call it moral consciousness).

What I am trying to get at is that under certain circumstances it is not wrong to give birth and this is dependent on the risks and the capacity of prospective parents to correctly apply themselves - their will or motivation - to act with this 'kernel' or love, empathy, compassion knowing that by decisively or rationally placing concern on the child' well-being, that child will not encounter these issues that you express they will because they will experience the love, support, the contact with two people that will enable them with the right understanding of how to find that Will to compassion. While this may not be a reason to give birth, it is the reason that once given birth.

Many people do not have this 'kernel' and so essentially are not motivated with this empathy, compassion, love and act without feeling and such people create the problem that you take issue with. So, you are drawing focus on the wrong thing - antinatalism - when the real issue is the essential nature of humankind. You are taking that static or fatalistic approach that I take issue with. The only argument you have, really, is about risk but my justification is that two loving parents minimise that risk exponentially.

I love the fact that you have set such high standards for yourself. I think you're the only person I've ever met who might be able to meet them. It's when you start applying the same standards to others that you run off the tracks. Ms. Smarty Pants. — T Clark

It does not make me wrong in thinking that something is wrong with people or a person where there is an absence of love. You cannot assume your opinion of my arrogance - which is true and I have no qualm being called as such - that somehow that becomes a justification for an erroneous view. The burden is on you to prove why and you have yet to do this. Focus.

It is wrong to spend $50,000 on a wedding, I can even go so far as to call that unethical. To spend $50,000 on IVF - psychologically, I may understand the underlying reasons and have sympathy for those reasons - but it is not justifiable ethically when there are thousands of children in need of care and adoption is available as an alternate. There is something about the concept of a child being 'mine' that I do not appreciate - it reminds me of the concept of the purity of "blood" that I am against - but I understand as a woman and perhaps from an evolutionary perspective vis-a-vis biology and maternal instinct; yet, the proportion of infanticide proves no real solidity in that argument. In addition, that money could be used to save thousands of women from preventable maternal deaths. Many people give birth to children for economic reasons, which returns back to my argument that I gave to Schopenhauer; our brains develop through love, contact, care and the absence of this greatly impacts on a person' emotional and psychological development.

The high rate of divorce and failed relationships that were originally initiated solely for economics and sexual pleasure implies an absence of love and that emptiness impacts on the development of the child whether directly or indirectly. That is why I say that family planning through authentic bond and love between two people - love being a decision - is the only time I will accept having my own child. It is love that enables an emotional connection, it is the foundation of our morals, our feelings. If you think that it is arrogant of me to say that a relationship without this unifying or authentically bonding mechanism is wrong, then yes, I am arrogant.

I didn't say that one out loud. But, as you say, an event of conspicuous consumption but also plain and simply mindlessly showing off (sorry @T Clark, being arrogant here) is way too much for me and my expression made that clear. I think the most expensive item at my wedding will be the honeymoon, because, that is where the real celebration will be conducted, no? Me and IVF are buddies. She calls me Dr. Evil.

Just because people don't hold out for the things you find important, that doesn't mean they seek love "solely for sexual pleasure and economics." — T Clark

Whilst I appreciate that you point out aspects to content that ultimately draw focus away from the overall argument - whether intentional or not - I think it is you projecting what you find 'important' and that since this is contrary to what I said, it is you that is actually being arrogant.

No doubt she found your assessment quite helpful. — Bitter Crank

The reaction was not as bad as when I said the same to someone who spent that much on a wedding.

Pretty arrogant. For you to tell people what their life means. For you to claim that most people's desire for love and acceptance is "solely for sexual pleasure and economics rather than love." Arrogant and wrong. — T Clark

Pretty arrogant of you not to explain why a relationship based solely on sexual pleasure and economics is morally good.

I am the evil and scorned antinatalist and pessimist that you all revile.. pleased to see everyone in good form here. I thought I'd make an appearance to add some perspective from the antinatalist side. Carry on with your circle jerking, if you must, but keep in mind several things. — schopenhauer1

I do not revile your opinions, but I must say this in advance of my dissection of your argument as I take it that there is a slight stab in my direction that perhaps requires some elucidation. To be 'emotional' is ambiguous, but the ontology of emotions enable existence to have substance and whilst perhaps the state is a neuro-psychological experience, it nevertheless provides us with a unique and intuitive process that coordinates a response to and relationship with the external world; it gives meaning to experience and is foundational to empathy and thus ultimately moral consciousness.

But there is an ambiguity in our understanding of the sentiment. The first and broadly understood - i.e. the boo friggidy hoo my life is shit emotions - is only bad insofar as the individual does not actively engage in making those circumstances better and if they are able to articulate it, then they are able to improve it. I am not fond of this type of emotion, it is too static, defeatist and unchanging for my taste.

The other, however, the this situation is unbearable and it needs to stop emotion is, to me, extremely important. Martha Nussbaum' account of compassion and emotion and her use of her own personal experiences as part of her thesis exemplifies how important such sentiments are, her and another favourite of mine Raimond Gaita' object-directedness through personal experience in books like The Philosophers Dog or Romulus, My Father. It is what makes us humane and to understand love or to be loving. As Nussbaum claims, our lack of emotions or appropriate emotional responses actually show that our response to and actions with the world can be hindered and thus our first and primary focus should be about articulating and correctly understanding ourselves.

When I was studying my PhD, my supervisor was so profoundly controlling in his attempt to dissuade my use of a similar methodology (he was a Marxist) that he referred to mine as being 'too feminine' and claimed that anything without a strict, clear, black and white reality was too 'emotional' and thus lacked legitimacy. I dropped out because at the time I thought he may be right.

He could not have been more wrong. Compassion and the passion for things like human rights, justice, righteousness and where I feel an inherent disdain for crimes against humanity, for the abuse of women and children, the lack of inequality, they are not a weakness but a strength. To use my own personal experience to exemplify this strength is comparatively what makes the OP sensible in his approach. So, you can call it 'circle jerking' but really, you are being the jerk here.

You can say as a society, the de facto non-intentional, yet emergent goal is to perpetuate social institutions by using individuals as inadvertent vehicles in which to enact another life of socially derived survival, comfort-seeking, and entertainment-seeking activities (which in turn strengthens social institutions, and so on). — schopenhauer1

Erich Fromm wrote: "Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence.” Our motivation or will to happiness and the experience of euphoria is identified and conditional with external objects or an implicit target to make the experience intelligible. A study of children in Romanian orphanages in the 1990's shows that the inhumane and extremely minimal contact with adults where no affection or emotion had ever been experienced actually alters the brain. We can give food, shelter, all the necessities to 'live' but that is not where 'life' manifests. The cognitive mechanisms that affect emotional expressions is modelled during developmental stages by characterising psychological content and sometimes this content is unconscious and not clearly understood and so projected incorrectly or what we refer to as mental health concerns like hysteria or sociopathy. How we express that needn't be violent or highly visible; a sociopath who has shut-off completely can still appear to live a normal life.

Are you implying that love - and again, not that sentiment of a mushy romance but think of 'brotherly love' when I say it or the capacity to give love (emotion/compassion) - as a Will that drives us, are you suggesting the endeavour to reach happiness by regulating and correctly applying our emotions and by being passionate against injustice or bad things happening to others, that contains no 'purpose'? As you say:

So humans need to be born so that they can learn to not make as many mistakes? — schopenhauer1

Humans don't need to be born at this stage; I openly told a woman at work who said that she spent $50,000 on IVF treatment that she was an idiot. We have more than enough children being born for the wrong reasons that need our attention (love, compassion, empathy, they are emotions that connect us) and why I myself do not wish to give birth but will (in the future) adopt a child. There is no 'black and white, strict, clear' reality here; IVF treatment and anti-natalism are two extremes and what we need is to apply ourselves with more humanity, compassion and knowledge that modifies our recalcitrant emotions and project it correctly to the external world, to direct the implicit and subjective experience to - as Searl said - direction of fit.

I don't like antinatalism, but I also don't care for people reproducing willy nilly because they won't practice family planning techniques that are readily available, and which no-one is stopping them from using. — Bitter Crank

The mutual love between two people and the desire to build a life together, a real desire and not some superficial one, is this family planning. The motivation or will is amplified by understanding that love is a choice that is mutually shared, whereas most think relationships are solely sexual pleasure and economics rather than love. The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. As for:

I wasn't ruling out individuals finding purpose, just that it wasn't an installed feature. — Bitter Crank

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does. It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” Sartre.

There may not be a purpose for us to fulfill, there may be no unifying pattern which makes all life meaningful. We are lucky to be dynamically alive. However happy or sorrowful each of us may be, we will not be here long before we are gone forever. It is better to seize the day and make the most we can of it. — Bitter Crank

If there is pain and suffering, liars, thieves and knaves that prey on the kind, loving an innocent then there will always be purpose; find a way of ending that whether it is within you, within your family or your social circle, even politically. Small or big, we can always improve.

I stopped experiencing sorrow when I stopped playing the victim and began fighting the good fight. I stopped feeling sad and lonely the moment I made the decision that I will not expect anyone to love me but I will work hard to love others. I stopped feeling scared the moment I starting seeing the results of my work with young people, the moment I saw my girls get stronger and happier and my boys become focused and respectful. All the misery in the world can be resolved by the simple act of listening, you don't even have to have the answers, everyone will find it when they are ready.

This does not make me someone special. It does not make me too "kind" or a prude. I am cool, I wear awesome clothes and shoes, have laughs and watch Adam Sandler movies, I pump it at the gym and have killer discussions with friends, but I have girl balls, basically. Being virtuous is not by following an image; it is simply being courageous.

I am not sure if I agree with part of your thread title (antinatalism). Not that I think that giving birth itself is immoral, but giving birth for the wrong reasons are. As one who does not have a family, parenting is not something that just is but there needs to be a mutual desire to procreate and to understand the underlying moral value to 'family' and that is why I personally have made the choice not to have children. Without the right man who will share the same desires make the idea of having children a very remote concept for me that I will return to my original objective and counter the emotions that come with it through adoption.

Total rubbish.
In the first place it is perfectly possible to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.
And in the second place atheists do NOT have a belief in God. Atheism says nothing about 'nothing existing'. — charleton

Do you believe it to be 'total rubbish' that knowledge is merely justified belief?

I am not going to deny that this is a particularly complex question, but when I say belief I do not mean an 'opinion' because the former possesses some experiential relation (except under very particular instances where the two can be mutually exclusive). The difference is that a belief can exist without an explicit representation, but even then, you see a dog and you implicitly remember by some experiential relation that it is a dog and so it is an explicit belief. It is factual and an involuntary belief, because while a 'dog' is true or a fact, you believe that 'dog' is true and because it is a fact you are justified in this belief as it satisfies the truth-conditions.

Quite excellent! Despite being a devout Christian, he was nevertheless highly skeptical of many forms of superstition, best demonstrated in his most famous essay, An Apology For Raymond Sebond (although given his many digressions however, it's discussed elsewhere as well). — Maw

Indeed, which is why he clearly showed that any 'difference' between genders is largely a product of custom and education which, I think, had an influence on Rousseau. He also has that forceful talent with a hint of humour (although I have certainly not read everything of his, just reminiscing what I did many years back now) that gives me that same joyful feeling that Voltaire does. I will try and remember the title of the essay, I am at work now but it is somewhere at home.

How good is Montaigne' writings on superstition?

Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception, by Raimond Gaita.

I completely agree with your point on a general estrangement from nature.. I was recently on a prop plane flying over the great barrier reef in Australia, a once in a lifetime experience, and sure enough I noticed the two girls in front of me on the plane were staring at their cell phones... the rest of the folks on the plane seemed to share enough of an appreciation of nature to be gazing out the windows, but i was unable to reconcile this behavior. — dnote

Have you seen those couples sitting together and they're both on the phone? It is an estrangement from our nature not just a closeness to our environment spatially, but an actual connection with others, nature and ourselves. It is like nature mirrors what we should be doing. People today have formed a digital identity where they connect to the external world through a faux system, a very capitalistic one where our 'wholeness' seems dependent on what others want rather than what we feel. Happiness rests solely on the applaud from others and that depends on how you 'present' yourself. When you are out in nature, hiking for instance, there is an isolation from that and it reminds us to connect back to ourselves and in doing so we become one with nature, so to speak, whole with our environment as it should be and remember what we want and not what others want from us.

That couple mentioned earlier are not in love with each other, but they love how through each other everyone loves them or applauds them and that is why they are together. What happens to real love?

"Those who have never known the deep intimacy and the intense companionship of mutual love have missed the best thing that life has to give."

Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. Is there a god saying we all ought act in x particular way? Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No. — antinatalautist

So, in essence, you are claiming that there is no necessary duty for you to uphold because you are assuming it to be some teleological moral claim whereby the consequences of your actions are irrelevant. You are clearly in denial of the golden mean which could be considered virtue ethics, thus this motivation or 'goodness' is, to you, non-existent. If you fail to care about value and outcomes, so what then motivates you to steal? The categorical imperatives claims that if you declare that stealing is permissible, it becomes an action that must objectively be necessary and it doesn't need to have a purpose or an end, but necessary. Tell me, why is it necessary for you to steal?

Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me. — antinatalautist

Quite. That is why we need the law and law enforcers. Ring of Gyges; fear appears to motivate people to behave, largely because of this lack of empathy.

It is impossible to have no beliefs: an atheist still has a belief that nothing exists. Unless you do not have the cognitive capacity to retain an opinion - in your case, you believe that you will not allow yourself to succumb to any belief - than you will have a belief, it is a part of language. You see a dog, you believe in the dog. The only thing you can do is, as I said, become conscious of what beliefs are through introspection and circumspection and a belief system is a network of beliefs so you can imagine just how complex it is from behavioural, social, psychological point or view with all those influences since you were young. To have the capacity to carry out the task of accurately dissecting your intent, your motivation and will requires one to improve themselves through constant learning.

So, you agree then, when I said that we can improve by becoming conscious of what these beliefs are and to formulate our own?

Belief is the death of reason. — charleton

Do you believe that?

Why? You are taking 'universal standards for moral behaviour' as an axiom (as in, what's wrong for you is wrong for me), whereas I am not. — antinatalautist

There is no universal prescription because I could understand that though you stole from me, you were stealing because you are hungry that renders further moral consideration. You, however, are claiming that there is no immorality in the act of stealing just because you feel like it or you can. If you are claiming that you are justified to be this thief, you are making an assertion that such standards of moral behaviour is wrong; explain.

Nevertheless, the categorical imperative indeed attempts to demonstrate that being rational would mean that one should not contradict themselves by being irrational and immorality is irrational and self-contradictory. To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk?

He never escaped the cell of belief in the eternal psyche, for which no evidence could be possible. — charleton

There is an opportunity to reach an autonomy through the motivation or freedom of our will that enables us to cross unlock that door and while largely we merely restricted to merely rearranging our beliefs, why is it necessarily to completely abandon them? Can we not simply improve them, or at the very least have the will to become conscious of what these beliefs are and to formulate our own?

This literally doesn't even make sense. I'm not the one being stolen from. I am the thief. The argument only makes sense if the person making it *assumes* universal standards for moral behaviour. That is, stealing is wrong whether you do it, or I do it. — antinatalautist

Hence why I said it is the lack empathy that enables a person to steal without consideration or compassion to the person you are stealing from. This internalised "goodness" is motivated by a moral consciousness as you feel sad, at a loss, angry even when things are stolen from you and that makes you see the bigger ethical picture and your role in that. I think you need to make an argument for the value of being a thief without caring about the person or people or the ultimately consequences of this and not the other way around.

But there is no doubt that, despite his skepticism, he and everyone around him was subordinated to the cultural norms all around them. — charleton

I think it was in reference to a doubt that we must consistently have that marks this Socratic approach against a mindless ideological submission, where the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing together with consistently questioning and examining your thoughts and opinions.

While we remain in the prison, we can still escape the cell.

Hence we must admit that the relation [‘north of’], like the terms it relates, is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but does not create.
— “Bertrand Russell”

Crucial point. This is something that almost nobody gets. The way thought operates constantly relies on such judgements, that are not dependent on a particular mind, but only perceptible by a mind. They are rational relations and the basis for inference and judgement, and are real, but not physical, in that they’re prior to judgement. — Wayfarer

I haven't come across this until now; wouldn't "A to the north of B" enable us to claim that "B is to the south of A" but we are not allowed to claim that "B is not to the south of A" and so the proposition is made explicit by this conceptual connection. I am not entirely sure if there is a distinctness between the two propositions where it is apparently independent of the mind because they do not syntactically differ or are co-referential. It is a prori knowledge.

What role does this play on the mind? Could it be the case that we ignorantly think we're some adaptable species and that the way we have influenced our environment is better when in reality, it causes mental unrest? — dnote

There is an interesting study done on the psychological 'imprint' relating to the industrial revolution, whereby "[r]esearchers suggest this is the inherited product of selective migrations during mass industrialisation compounded by the social effects of severe work and living conditions," that enveloped into a higher probability for mental health issues. The social conditions, urbanisation and urban sprawling is a massive change and the effects of learned behavioural traits together with maltreatment from the terrible conditions can potentially impact on genetics. The city working environment is busy and the dirty spaces increase stressors that this is likely to replicate into our home environment and our children. There is also a privilege to that research and one could imagine the difficulties in urban slums in Rio or Mumbai, or megacities like Bangkok or Mexico City - can one imagine the psychological toll this would have?

I think that there is also an estrangement to nature that has built a damaging bulwark that aggravates negative physical and cognitive development, particularly in children, and we have embedded 'band aids' to try and fix the growing mental-health concerns that could largely correlate to poor physical development and interaction with nature. Kids are watching television and eating artificial foods, forming an identity based on social networking and media representation about appearances; I was out having a coffee with a friend and saw two young girls - probably between 10-12 years old - holding handbags, wearing make-up and walking down the street 'shopping' and the disturbing picture of these girls has left a lasting effect on me. Children have very little to no relationship with the outdoors.

We cannot deny that there are also a number of positives to these social changes and it is really about striking the balance. As someone in the process of adoption, I have learnt that children' development is strongly linked to 'play' and my relationship with nature is very strong that I will reinforce that regularly into my child, being an avid hiker and outdoorsy person myself. I have also been promoted to a role that requires me to work full-time in the city, a temporary thing for me as I hate working in the city, and I know that this has increased my stress levels, something I will change over the next year or so.

I really appreciate your advice and encouragement. This renews my hope and my enthusiasm for life and philosophy, for the time being. — JustSomeGuy

(Y) I'm sure we're going to enjoy having you here too. Philosophy is really just a way to conceptualise our own ideas and by engaging with others that may question whether we are on the right trajectory or not is useful - even if it makes us uncomfortable and agitated - because we then learn how to explain ourselves.